This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Yann, I hope you are doing fine. I'm writing to you regarding LukaszKatlewa - I will take care of him, if you allow. He is willing to learn, cooperate and straighten out all problems with his files. Whatever he's mis-labeled in terms of licenses or authors/sources, was due to his lack of knowledge, but certainly not due to the lack of good will. I'll explain him all the nuances and we will run through some examples, and I bet he will turn into valuable commons contributor. Thanks for the understanding! Masur (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted this file for no reason. I sent all of the required info for use. This photo is owned, controlled and created by me. I sent the required copyright and permissions via email in the following email to the WIKI commons.. Please revert your deletion and removal from the wiki page it was on.. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonicWiki (talk • contribs)
As for all content which was published previously elsewhere, a formal written permission is needed. But OK, I restored the file, and added {{OTRS pending}}. The permission has to be validated later though. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3 quality images
Dear Admin Yann,
Could you possibly license review these 3 images please? The license is CC BY SA 3.0
Hello! Just wanted to follow-up on your comment at the deletion request you started on a bunch of files I transferred from English Wikipedia. Why would images like these not be accepted today? Your original rationale is that they are small without EXIF data. Is the concern that they are small images and not useful for Wikimedia projects? Or is the concern that lacking EXIF data they may not have been uploaded to English Wikipedia by the original copyright holder?
Thanks for your time. Sorry to be a hassle. I'm just trying to figure out the ropes here so that I don't cause anyone extra work to undo my messes. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we certainly have a higher requirement in image quality and copyright proof than 10 years ago. These small images fail both, so they wouldn't be accepted today unless there is no other option (historical images, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; could you please point me to any kind of document or rough guideline about what kind of image quality is expected or required on Commons? As you can see, this is not my usual stomping ground. I don't want to go about continuing to transfer stuff that'll just cause headaches. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In wanna know, in which country nationality or passport is xenophobic, that´s nonsense. Like Import Dansk (Faxe), or Export-German (tourist).
The personal revenge campaign from A.Savin is well known since I´m a commoner, thanks the Lord not in wikipedia but good enough for a entry at psiram.
Other non sock puppets groaning only by hearing the name Savin, he´s not known for polite ore usefully hints.
So, to keep the slander "virulent" I add destructive and evil-minded, not far away from neurotic. This only for a critic by a careless taken pic, years ago.
And the missing technical feature at wikipedia sw to block some destructive deputy sheriff.
Or can someone explain his hoppy to kill some of my QI´s - reviewed by enough other commoner?
Thanks for the winning free time at eastern. Up this time I save my engagement.
Spending time with kids makes more sense, not a virtual Kindergarten - (like Butterbrot international, too). Regards, Hans-Jürgen Neubert
Several Commons community members are working on ways to integrate Wikidata in Wikimedia Commons. While this is not full-fledged structured data yet, this work helps to prepare for future conversion of data, and helps to understand how Wikidata and Commons can work better together.
We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
In the example of Commons:Threshold of originality#Hungary "OK" (SZJSZT-17/2012) the question was that the logo used (the logo text and image was not under copyright, because the stylized display of the business name and next to it a stylized globe, which can be found in technical books and on the Internet; it was a partial globe with latitudes and longitudes, and with a slightly tilted representation) is or does not have copyright protection, but not that the work derived therefrom. There namely it says that: "...the acting council states that the original just typographical solution logo it sight which consisted solely of the company name, has changed with the globe supplement. The sketch of a globe and the compiling the two elements shows clearly graphic design skills." - the copyright issue was not extended for this work, so about the final creation it isn't a legal resolution and we do not even know how these logos looks at all (despite that of the subject of the decisionis there is a good description - see italics). Are you sure, that you made the right decision? The Hungarian OTRS have a legal resolution from Momentum, that there is an existence of copyright (ticket number: 2018021510007142).
BUT User:Oppashi is in progress for a cc-by because there is a trademark protection too. If he did not succeed what is expected from what is described? Can the image be deleted from Commons? We have a former permission for just for Wikipedia illustration (not the same but similar to fair use). (Sorry for my bad English language knowledge!) Fauvirt (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I think there should a confusion about the copyrighted logo, as the one shown here doesn't include any globe, as you mention above. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I summarized the SZJSZT 17/2012 Hungarian text (see the link above) in English.
In the Hungarian Law isn't something like the PD-textlogo. It says 1§ (3) The creation shall enjoy copyright protection based on its individual, original nature originating from the intellectual activity of the author. The protection shall not be subject to any quantitative, qualitative and aesthetic characteristics, or to value judgements relating to the standard of the creation. Fauvirt (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new Wikipedia editor. I have been working on the page on Mariette Lydis as part of the national Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. You have flagged my edits for copyright issues. I do not want to violate copyrights, but I am unfamiliar with the protocols, and I am attempting to populate Lydis's page with some of her work to better represent her career. Could you help me preserve these images, as long as that is ethically acceptable, so that we can keep at least some representation of her work?
We need the permission from Mariette Lydis' heirs to publish her works of art on Wikimedia. You may ask @Malydis: , it seems to be someone from the family. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Please ask if you need any help. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again -- Malydis is not a descendant, and Mariette Lydis had no children. How else should I approach copyright release?
Deletion of the photo Pierre Hemmer.jpg who has the necessary rights
On March 29, 2018, you deleted the "Pierre Hemmer.jpg" file. However, on March 21, 2018, the author of the photo, Ben Zurbriggen, had sent the full authorization to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
Thank you kindly to indicate to me the reasons of the suppression and to guide me on the modalities to restore the image. Best regards. Marsile (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the ticket number? Otherwise, the file will be restored when the permission is validated, which can take some time, as there is a backlog. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This tourist map of Kannur (a district in Kerala) have been created by me as part of my academic module on cartography. I have created this map from scratch.
I intend to make similar maps for all the districts of Kerala. I also intend to make minor corrections and add more details in the uploaded map of Kannur.
My page [Hill Law] was deleted for the following reason: "Out of scope, Serves no purpose other than to self promote." I would like to share my pictures and have them attributed to me. I would be extremely grateful if you could provide me with some guidance on how my photos can be attributed to me without it being construed as "self promot[ing]."
Hallo Yann, i've seen that you have undeleted many files above. Can you undelete the rest of "my" files too, which were deleted by Jcb? All images are from NASA photographers and eligible for Commons. Thank you --Ras67 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted the photo of Shalimar Seiuli the name of the file is Shalimar Seiuli.jpg. This photo was uploaded after obtaining permission from the photographer who took the photo, Linda Simpson. I emailed Wikipedia commons all required documentation yet the file was deleted from commons. Can you please let me know what else you need. The ticket number is as follows Ticket:2018033110005648. Fightforsocialjustice (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I restored the file and added "OTRS received". We may need to have a proof of copyright ownership. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following up from some comments by an anonymous editor on my talkpage, could you explain further your basis for deletion of File talk:Monnaie de Bactriane, Eucratide I, 2 faces.jpg? It appears to be a specific concern about material on the file description page. That is well within the Commons:Verifiability for altering the statement, and talkpages are specifically for discussion regarding improving page content. Also, the anonymous editor reports being unable to contact you directly because your talkpage is protected. Is the vandalism problem you were combatting last December still a likely threat? DMacks (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The initial description comes from the National Library of France, who took the photograph, and is certainly more reliable than a blog. I can't find back the source, but the anonymous comment looks more like a trolling tentative to me than anything else. I am only available on sporadic times, and 99% of IP messages are just junk, so it doesn't seem worth the effort. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to raise the concern (especially since it is merely a summary of an on-wiki consensus concern raised at English WP where the image is a featured-image!). And whatever evidence you have, or concerns about others' sources, would then surely be welcomed as a response there. I doubt the talkpage of the main en.wp website is trolling you. DMacks (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I nominated this picture as FP, both here and on enwiki: en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gold 20-stater of Eucratides, where no concern about the description was raised. And Commons is not the English WP, so the description of the POTD is not directly related to the description on Commons. I can't find the discussion this IP is talked about, but seeing the language used in your talk page, my evaluation remains the same. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I changed the wording, using the one used on English WP. I think this is quite a neutral statement. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
do not report the issue is several places?
I noticed you reverted my edits( see: [2]) recently that said that "do not report the issue is several places". I don't understand why.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The licenses look correct now: cc-by (2.0, perhaps b/c that's the last time he updated stated pref). Warm regards, --SJ+15:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Loulou1863 ... totalement largué !
Bonjour Yann,
J'ai bien compris qu'il fallait que je produise l'autorisation écrite du propriétaire du tableau "Le cirque Nidelet" mais j'ai beau lire et relire tout ce qui m'est possible de trouver, je ne comprends pas comment procéder. Le jargon Wikipedia ou Wikicommons m'est totalement inconnu.
Pouvez-vous m'aider ?
Avec mes remerciements anticipés et cordiaux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loulou1863 (talk • contribs)
C'est bon : le droit suisse autorise une reproduction contrairement au droit français. Le panneau est seulement du texte de toute façon. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have much worse quality around here. Not a high quality image, but it could still be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the purpose of this page? As it is a very long page which produce errors and clutter page maintenance. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann. That test page was quite useful, and it would be good if it can be restored, please. Which errors and page maintenance areas was it causing problems at? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well the page itself is full of errors, and it appears in Wikidata related error pages. It would be better if the page is clean a bit. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've commented out the "Qxx.." ones, which were causing most of the errors. I'll probably add a "cat=no" parameter or something similar to remove the auto-categorisation, but that'll have to wait until later. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je me suis inscrit au mois d'avril et je commence à peine à comprendre l'ensemble des règles.
Pour les précédents, je regrette les problèmes occasionnés sur lesquels j'aimerai revenir svp
pour les premières photos airgam boys; il s'agit d'une erreur de débutant j'ai tout simplement téléchargé des photos d'internet;
cela ne se reproduira plus j'ai intégré la régle qui tout à fait compréhensible Je ne le referai plus.
pour "treize magazine", j'ai mis un un peu plus de temps à comprendre à la règle; la revue "treize magazine" a disparu , elle n'existe plus. les couvertures que j'avais proposées étaient des scans que j'avais fait moi même réaliser à partir de couverture ainsi qu'un article sur l'équipe de Montpellier XIII. C'est un administrateur en anglais qui m'a expliqué que je ne pouvais pas le faire, mais je peux comprendre que potentiellement la fédération à XIII pourrait revendiquer toute image ou tout article. Je m'abstiendrai donc de le faire à l'avenir
pour le fichier André Sénégas, File:Nécrologie officielle André Sénégas.jpg coupure de presse de ma collection personnelle, quelques précisions SVP serait nécessaire pour mieux comprendre
Yann vous êtes sur de cela ? Il ne s'agit pas de playmobil mais d'airgam boys la société a disparu et les joueuts ne sont même plus commercialisés. ? --WIKITRIPAU (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fin des années 70, début 80 ans. SVP, D'où vient cette règle des 70 ans ? Attention ce n'est pas pour contester, mais c'est pour savoir...--WIKITRIPAU (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WIKITRIPAU : En Europe, les droits d'auteur existent jusqu'à 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur, ou 70 ans après la publication si l'auteur est anonyme ou les droits appartiennent à une personne morale. Voyez Droit d'auteur pour plus de détails. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann re Bonjour, Épilogue, j'ai anticipé la suppression des images, en les supprimant de l'article que je vais réécrire (j'ai déjà commencé) au lieu de photos, je mettrai des sources ou des renvois vers le site. En clair donc je vous laisse supprimer mes photographies. Je serai même tenté de vous demander de clôturer mon compte, un peu comme l'on interdit un casino à un joueur de roulette lol, mais j'ai peur que cela me crée des difficultés pour l'utilisation ensuite à partir de wiki? cldt --WIKITRIPAU (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WIKITRIPAU : OK, très bien. Je pense que vous avez compris le problème, alors j'ai retiré l'avertissement sur votre page. Il n'y a pas de raison de bloquer votre compte aujourd'hui. Vous pouvez ajouter un mot dans la demande de suppression disant que vous acceptez la suppression des images. Elles seront probablement supprimées dans une semaine. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vous remarquerez que les incidents datent tous du même moment du mois ou presque celui de la période de mon inscription, il s'agit donc de tâtonnement de ma part. Merci pour votre bienveillance.
--WIKITRIPAU (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merci pour votre message. Pas de souci, on apprend en essayant, mais faites attention à l'avenir. Voyez mes réponses ci-dessus. En cas de doute, n'hésitez pas me demander, ou sur le Bistro, ou le Service d'aide. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Image supprimée : Leopold PLOWIECKI-portrait-2.jpg
Bonjour Yann,
Le 20 mars, tu as supprimé une image que j'avais mise en ligne (sur Léopold PLOWIECKI / File:Léopold PLOWIECKI-portrait-2.jpg). Déjà, tu m'as indiqué que c'était mon dernier avertissement, alors que je n'avais même pas vu le premier avertissement. Bon, c'est certainement que j'ai manqué d'attention. Mais je ne comprends pas comment donner l'autorisation, car j'ai effectivement écrit un e-mail (en suivant le modèle de Wikimédia en anglais) à la fondation, il y a maintenant trois semaines, et je n'ai toujours pas reçu de réponse.
Dois-je relancer ?
Dois-je tenter une réimportation ?
Dois-je plutôt écrire à l'adresse e-mail de destinataire en français (permissions-fr@wikimedia.org), plutôt que l'anglaise (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) ?
Je te serais vraiment reconnaissant si tu pouvais m'aider, car j'essaie de lire de l'information sur les images, les autorisations, les catégories... mais c'est un peu complexe à saisir.
Si le mail est en français, il vaut mieux l'envoyer à l'adresse en français. En plus la liste d'attente est notablement plus courte en français. As-tu le numéro du ticket ? Cordialement, Yann (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merci pour ta réponse. Le ticket reçu par wikimedia directement après avoir envoyé l'e-mail de demande est : ticket:2018032210010659. L'e-mail envoyé était bien en anglais, mais toujours pas de réponse depuis fin mars... Cordialement, L'enfant bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'enfant bio (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yann, Thank you for reviewing the below files and undeleting them.
Is it possible to mark all the images as administrator reviewed so it won't be nominated for copyvio later on? I am referring to the files bellow from the competed undelete request.
Also noticed there is one more file as well, which is already used widely, if possible to mark this one as reviewed by an administrator so it won't face the same problem later well.
Regarding the watermark, only one is available without at this point.
The files didn't have a license, that's why they were tagged and deleted. Now I added a license, so they should be fine. Could you please upload over them a high resolution and/or without a watermark? You don't need to copy the whole discussion here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, I didn't know how to mark it on the talk page without doing the entire thing sorry about that. The issue is that anyone can tag whatever they want on uploads including as licensed, but if it's marked as reviewed by administrators (saw some images have a license marking by administrators if you know what I mean) it will avoid future taggings as copyvio. I don't have images without watermarks, I can try to ask the photographer to provide them since they are public domain, but I doubt he will even reply to me because it means no advertising to him. This is why marking them as reviewed by administrators will help tremendously. Thank you so much! --Bohbye (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yann, Thank you for guiding me how to do it going forward. Thanks for marking 4 of them already as reviewed, and I just added license review to the 5th. I appreciate your help and patience with a new user of wiki. --Bohbye (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:NicolasCorbeil.jpg.jpg
Salut Yann, Merci pour la restauration des photos de l'utilisateur The Boss 1980. Petit problème toutefois : sur File:NicolasCorbeil.jpg.jpg, en voulant remplacer par la version plus grande de flickr, tu as importé la mauvaise photo de flickr ! :) Il faudrait supprimer cette version du 04:07, 25 April 2018. Merci. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yann - Quick note (and even doing that might be in error (i.e. not the right thing/too informal - to do)...Not sure. In any case, My justification on dual accounts ("sockpuppet") wasn't to deceive (I have no illusions that there are a lot of people in the Wiki universe that would be very good at and like nothing more to break up the monotony of a day than reverse engineering the digital breadcrumbs of a scoundrel . My justification is: My first log-in was +/- 4 years ago and when I logged in a few years after that, I didn't remember what my account was (Truthfully, I might not even have remembered that I had already created an account)or slightly more possible, I didn't know all my user name/log-ins credentials. I realize creating a second account is sloppy and might not warm too many hearts, sorry about that. But the point of my story is that my intention was not to deceive - I think my possibly obvious technical unfamiliarity at wiki could somewhat be an argument for that. In any case, I just got so many email notifications that it seems like someone is made at me or that at a minimum, I certainly didn't do things correctly - Sorry for that
Question (per your suggestion) - I read "Creative Commons Attribution–Share Alike 4.0" - It appears to me that these files are correctly licensed under "public domain, or under a free license" (which you might have slide them into - Thanks) Am I incorrect on that and there is something that still needs to be corrected ?
Thank you & appreciate your help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazybitterunicorn (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the other account, it is fine if you don't use it. To be clearer, you can mention that on your user page. For the license, my message is because of your post here, where you said Use of this logo is granted for secondary use for educational purposes or otherwise only in connection with promoting the "Old Bull Lee" name or "Old Bull Lee" products. That's a contradiction with the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yann - It does look like you cleaned that up for me - Thank you. Another question: In regards to getting it into the correct category - Do you recommend I create an "Old Bull Lee" category or is it more fitting that it would be placed under something larger (i.e. "organizations of The United States" or "businesses of California" "fashion" - Thank you, you are turning into my hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazybitterunicorn (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the better of the two places to ask the question. And might you know the answer? It could be deleted from both places. B137 (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I swear by myself that it is my own work and is taken from my own phone camera with that person's consent and i have full copyrights to that so please restore it. 2nd Innings (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All files you have uploaded so far are copyright violations, so we have good reasons to doubt your claim. Could you please upload the unmodifed original file with EXIF data? Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i accept that all the others were uploads from the net but please understand that this particular camera photo is mine and it is not modified.
2nd Innings (talk)
please understand that it is my own photo which i posted in facebook as well but this is not taken from facebook. it is from my file directly in the mobile phone from which i took this pitcure live
2nd Innings (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dear Yann
I am very disappointed to see the photos which i took from my own camera are being suspected for copyright violation. please don't do this. why do you'll misunderstand me. 2nd Innings (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Innings: No camera or phone produces such a small file. And here, it is the other way round: you have to prove that you are the author of the images. So far, you failed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anusha Gunasekera.jpg
This media file has been nominated for deletion since 29 April 2018.
Reason for the nomination: Last remaining images, very unlikely to be own works.
Dear Yann,
i accept that unknowingly i uploaded other's works in previous images but then my father advised me so this photo was actually a photo taken by myself from my phone (SAMSUNG GALAXY S6 EDGE+) in Eheliyagoda , Ratnapura when i met this famous politician and he gave his full consent to take this photo.
2nd Innings (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so the reason for deletion above states it is very unlikely to be my own work but that also tells us that it even has a smaller chance of being my own work , not like the previous uploads so beleive me. Especially , today is Vesak , (which is considered to be the most holiest day in Buddhism) so i wouldn't lie on this day so please beleive me and remove the nomination for deletion.
Do not do that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why should I be afraid ? I am not vandalising this page, I just tell the truth. But may be such a concept in not in use within Wikimedia Community. Let me know. SuperRollex SuperRollex (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperRollex (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone on Wikipedia seems to want to 'delete' rather than help individuals when it comes to removing content.
In regards to: File:Jonathan-thompson-with-warwick-davies.jpg
I contacted Jonathan Thompson himself who expressly gave permission for this image to be used. It can be found on his website at: www.jonathan-thompson.co.uk
Please ask Jonathan Thompson to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
-- This has been done and the file now included in Wiki Commons: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Thank you
While it is allowed to edit when logged out, this does look quite a bit like a (poor) attempt at IP-socking. Not sure what (if anything) I should do with that? - Alexis Jazz14:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MazzyBor keeps not only doing stuff I wrote here, he also started writing a lot of very imsulting and nationalistic stuff, mostly in the Serbian (cyrillic) language.
I am telling you this because he sent an Unblock request yesterday.
His arguments are: "You have absolutely no reason to block me, i didn't harass anyone, if you are going to block someone for your personal reasons, then you have no right to be an admin."
Well, I not even want to give a statement to this because you see what he is talking about and what kind of hateful person he is. Somehow he came up with "This is the Serbian Wikipedia and go away from it" 'n' stuff. I already translated everything into German to De728631.
The only thing I am going to do the same I told De728631; and this is to promise you I have done my best by translating his messages and that I haven't fortificated or added anything wrong.
You don't need to copy all rants here. I can use Google Translate myself. I declined the unblock request, and I actually extended the block to one month. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message, btw. I haven't used Google Translate because it is not good for translating whole texts, hahaha. Best regards, --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Credits
Hi, Yann. I am currently expanding an article on Wikipedia and would like to upload an image here, but the image is not mine, so I come to ask you to help me or advise me. I do not have much experience in this subject, so I do not know what to do. Can I upload it in Commons directly and give it the credits in the author section or should I contact the creator of the image? This is the image: [3]Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to ask the author, Patrick Lynch, a permission for a free license. The author must send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please see COM:OTRS for the detailed instructions. Then you can upload the file here. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The author has already responded, giving me permission to upload it. But I'm confused, in the first step he says he has to release him under a free license. Does it mean that everyone can use it or only me? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Yann, aurais-tu la gentillesse de te charger du renommage de ce fichier, j'ai voulu aller un peu vite et du coup ça ne fonctionne plus sur Wikisource. Un tout grand merci. Reptilien.19831209BE1 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Yann. Serait-il possible de renommer le fichier « DIÉTERLE, Amélie SIP. 827-7. Photo Reutlinger b.jpg » en « Amélie Diéterle (1871-1941) carte postale (A30).jpg » ? Un renommeur de fichiers n'a pas accédé à ma demande en indiquant que ce n'est pas conforme aux directives de changement de nom, alors que j'avais précisé qu'il s'agit bien d'harmoniser les fichiers associés. D'autant que pour d'autres fichiers similaires, cela n'a pas posé de difficultés, d'où mon incompréhension. Je travaille en ce moment sur la catégorie Amélie Diéterle, ainsi que sur l'article Amélie Diéterle et j'essaie d'organiser au mieux tout ce qui est en rapport avec la comédienne. J'ai encore bon nombre d'images à importer, d'où l'utilité de coordonner le nom des fichiers afin de permettre une plus grande extension. Merci par anticipation pour votre aide. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yann, thank you for your work. Sorry if I gave you supplement of dirty work. As far as I remember for those files, I tagged them about permission, because it was about people, which are not the author himself, and not in public places... and as far as I know, they have a right for their image... so when it is not explicit, why should it be on wiki ? even ordinary people have to give their consent on being on wiki, isn't it ? Pippobuono (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pippobuono: That's not what the "no permission" tag is about. This tag is strictly about copyright. What you mean is not a copyright concern, but an image right issue. Commons is usually not concerned about this, unless of a gross obviously violation, which is not the case here. These people were fully aware of being photographed, and many of them are public figures, so there isn't much to worry about their image right. However a {{Personality rights}} tag might be useful. Feel free to add it. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. About this same issue, you restore everything but File:Kane_2008.JPG because "is taken with a different camera, and there is derivative work issue." Now user pleads this a 2008 photo, when he's got another camera, but he's the photographer and the fighter gets in his hand a picture of him painted made by the user. Can you please check and decides? Thanks (btw, I already talk to him about the mail adress). Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could accept his claim as a photographer, but we still need a permission from the painter. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The user is the painter. The fighter has got in his hands the painting made by the user, who was also the one who took the photo. --Ganímedes (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of image file: David-Birkin Whitney-Museum-ISP 2014.jpg
Another model Noritsu scanner
Hi Yann,
I'm writing to ask for your assistance...
On 29 March, you deleted an image file I uploaded titled File:David-Birkin Whitney-Museum-ISP 2014.jpg for which I own the copyright. It is a photograph of the artist David Birkin taken in 2014 and does not violate any creative license. I'd be grateful if you could explain to me why it's been deleted and how I can restore it with the correct permissions.
I restored the file, but I think you should send a permission via COM:OTRS, to prevent it to be deleted again. We have so many people claiming to be someone else. Alternatively, you could upload the original version with full EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
suppression des images sur la page de Philippe Swyncop
Bonjour,
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi vous avez supprimé les caricatures importées sur wiki commons et sur la page de Philippe Swyncop.
Ces caricatures appartiennent à ma famille depuis toujours, et la photo est de moi...
Bien à vous
--Geneviève A (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Désolé pour le retard à vous répondre. L'important n'est pas à qui appartient ces dessins, mais qui les a dessinés. Seul l'auteur peut accorder une licence, et Commons demande une confirmation formelle par écrit pour tout document qui a été publié ailleurs auparavant. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour les instructions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Вітання! Якщо зображення не досягає порогу оригінальності, необхідного для застереження авторських прав, а тому перебуває у суспільному надбанні, то це все одно не означає, що завантажувач має право приписувати собі авторство. Чому в такому випадку ви не виправили неправдиву інформацію про авторство і дату створення? --Микола Василечко (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann: I want to point out that the user is not the author of this logo, but publishes this work for his own. The user has repeatedly infringed copyright. For what was blocked, see. Now "resurrected" under another profile. And continues to download other people's work. If the imagedoes not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain, then it still does not mean that the loader has the right to attribute to himself the authorship. The image shows that it is scanned: on the reverse there is the number 2 (the page number of the newspaper) and the shadow of the text of the article. Why, when you put a template, did not correct the false information about authorship and date of creation? And the user generally has to apply sanctions for bypassing blocking and repeated attempts to infringe copyright. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the claimed author matches the one mentioned in the EXIF. If you know better, please add more information. This is a wiki. And as per Incnis Mrsi's point, there may be moral rights in some cases of pubic domain documents, but I am not sure it applies here. We have had this debate before. And the conclusion was that if PD-textlogo applies and it is in scope, whatever is the information, there is no reason for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
«неправдивої інформації... щодо авторства логотипу» - «false information... concerning authorship of the logo». User may be the author of the image, but is not the author of the logo. How to be here? --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The author has sent his permission to upload them on 13 May. I can't understand why the case has not yet been processed while others, more recent ones, are quickly processed.--Eckhardt Etheling (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS tickets take several weeks to be processed. But I see that the mail was sent on March 13th, 2018, not May 13th. I am looking at it now. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that may make a difference, but where did you find that? That was not mentioned in the UDR, and it is not on Flickr. That exactly what I asked in the UDR. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz and Tuvalkin: I am fine if you want to reopen the undeletion request. I won't oppose it now, but honestly the quality is very poor, so I won't restore it either. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen an UDR? Why? So that you can bring it up next time you want me banned? Nah, there’s limits to my willingness to try to keep Commons a serious place instead of a playground for vain photographers and their deletionist enablers. -- Tuválkin✉✇08:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not happy with this speedy close from Jcb. I think the discussion itself already changed things (that Jcb prefers to ignore), but I am also still willing to contact Getty and we really should be able to agree on a way to do it. - Alexis Jazzping plz19:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have blocked User:Lethiernois in the past for uploading unfree images. I have nominated some of their more obvious examples for deletion, but I suspect that most if not all of the diagrams that they have uploaded are copyright violations. And some of the images. Any chance of you blocking them again before they upload more iffy material? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne savais pas que toutes ces images étaient interdites d'être utilisées sur Common. Je m'en excuse. Ça ne servirait en rien de me bloquer, je ne savais juste pas comment marchaient ces lois.--Lethiernois (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you undelete the above file for a brief period so that I can import it to Wikiversity for fair use? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration! --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, Thank you for processing my undeletion requests. I had some questions on moving earlier NFCC images on the English Wikipedia to Commons. Here is an example. Question 1: Can I request a move on these images under the Template:GODL-India license. Question 2: IF I understand this correctly, under NFCC rules the images are down sampled and the original resolution deleted. Is there a way here to get the original resolution images moved to Wikimedia Commons? Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be decided on a case by case basis. I am not sure for this particular file, because it is a painting, not a photograph, but generally, yes, images under {{GODL-India}} can be imported to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yann Sorry I am a bit confused, does Wikimedia treat paintings different then photographs? I this was published by the India Government and the Indian Army on their website. So is there a specifc reason that we can take a photograph from these websites but not portraits (to be more specific). Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adamgerber80: {{GODL-India}} means that works created by the Indian government are under a free license. I am not sure if the painting was created by the Indian government, that's the point. You may ask on COM:VPC. Finally, after undeleting a few files, I think these paintings are OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request.
Hello dear Yann.
I would like to remove and delete all of the picture and information i have uploaded on this platform.
I'm the copy right owner of my own self portrait and paintings. please remove them asap.
Hi Yann, Hope all is well, Could you do me a favour please?,
Could you block me till the 3rd July under something like "Self requested block" and could you revoke TP access too please?,
As much as I love this place I just need a month away,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk14:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the same file, I accidentally uploaded two photos at the same time. I have reverted it. I request to delete this version: "[5]".--Kai3952 (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nuevamente están borrando mis contribuciones indiscriminadamente...
Hola amiga, como dice en el título, están atentando a mis contribuciones de forma reiterativa, que más quieren que haga? he enviado hasta el permiso dejando a dominio publico las fotografías y usted lo sabe y veo que no ha servido de nada porque este usuario no respeta mi trabajo. Espero que me ayude a solucionar esto pronto porque ya me está pareciendo una burla, saludos.--LocoWiki (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hola Yann, te comento que en la imagen que aporté a Wikipedia que fue borrada y restaurada,
File:Estéfani Espín.jpg
, me percaté que fue restaurada una edición de 2013 la cual no cumple con las normas del copy rigth, por lo que esa edición debería ser eliminada, saludos.--LocoWiki (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann. user:Hiba Falah is the account used by the production company Arab Telemedia Group. They were approached by the wikimedians of the Levant and were asked to release posters of their work under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0. They are now doing do. But to make sure no one else is miss-using the agreement, they requested that their account Hiba Falah is the only account allowed to upload the posters for now. They were supposed to use a special tag for it . I will check all the uploads and make sure all is ok. --Tarawneh (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a note in English to the OTRS ticket; the last few additions there were in Arabic. Simply put, account User:Hiba Falah can release the company's poster as he is the actual copyright holder. --Tarawneh (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne peux pas changer la licence. J'ai le message : Copyrighted content was found in your video. The claimant is allowing their content to be used in your YouTube video. However, ads might appear on it. Je ne veux évidemment pas de pub dans ma vidéo. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Je te propose qu'on la passe en DR et que tu la téléverses de nouveau sur YouTube puis Commons avec la bonne licence et un titre légèrement différent. Cordialement, — Racconish💬18:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, ça ne changera rien. C'est la musique qui coince je pense. Ce n'est pas l'essentiel, mais une danse sans musique, c'est pas top... Yann (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tu as raison... mais on ne peut pas laisser ça comme ça. Soit tu vires la musique, soit il faut passer le fichier en DR. Vois-tu une autre option ? Cordialement, — Racconish💬18:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Est-ce que la vidéo sans la musique a un intérêt ? Si c'est non, je la supprime entièrement. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C'est peut-être pas idiot de garder la vidéo muette ici puisqu'il y aura aussi le lien vers la version sonorisée sur YouTube... mais il resterait encore nécessaire de justifier la licence qui n'est pas prouvée par le lien YouTube. Cordialement, — Racconish💬19:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour Yann. Je tiens à vous remercier pour votre aide récente sur les fichiers concernant la comédienne Amélie Diéterle dont je viens de prendre connaissance. Il est vrai que je mets beaucoup d'informations.
Pour les licences à propos de Gallica, je me souviens qu'une contributrice dans un débat, remettait parfois en cause la notion de domaine public pour certaines images et qui était mentionné sur le site de la bibliothèque numérique de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. D'où mes bandeaux supplémentaires : « PD-BNF|gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/… » et « PD-GallicaScan ».
Merci également pour la création du modèle Auguste Bert. J'avais commencé à rechercher la date et le lieu du décès, mais le temps me manque.
Pour ce qui concerne le fichier Amélie Diéterle (1871-1941) dans « Les amours de Don Juan » roman 1898 (05).jpg, j'ai un doute sur l'auteur de la photographie. S'agit-il de Edmond Lepelletier (1846-1913), Clément Rochel (1863-1919) ou Paul Sescau (1858-1926). Si ce dernier est le photographe officiel des éditions Nilsson/Per Lamm et Offertstadt Frères, d'où sont issues les photographies, Paul Sescau est mort voici moins de 100 ans. C'est pourquoi j'ai opté pour une licence dont le copyright a une durée de vie de 70 ans ou moins après la mort de l'auteur.
Je dois par ailleurs développer un chapitre à cet ouvrage dans l'article Amélie Diéterle avec une galerie photographique et les références précitées. Merci encore pour vos corrections et le temps passé sur ces fichiers. Bien cordialement, LIONEL76 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done Yann (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)OK * stylized text with a common stylized globe icon SZJSZT 17/2012 (does not show the actual image)
Not OK * Sulinet Expressz logo, see SZJSZT 1/2005
.jpg){kind=link}
_E._Horak_544511.jpg){kind=link}
_E._Horak_796000.jpg){kind=link}
_E._Horak_712364.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_poses_in_front_of_her_F-18_Hornet_aircraft(3363631_Milne-1aInsta).jpg){kind=link}
_poses_in_front_of_her_F-18_Hornet_aircraft(3363633_Milne-2aInsta).jpg){kind=link}
_poses_in_front_of_her_F-18_Hornet_aircraft(3363640_Milne-4aInsta).jpg){kind=link}
_poses_in_front_of_her_F-18_Hornet_aircraft.jpg){kind=link}
_carte_postale_(A30).jpg){kind=link}
_--_Maxim_Sukharev.jpg){kind=link}
_--_Maxim_Sukharev.jpg){kind=link}
_--_Maxim_Sukharev.jpg){kind=link}
_--_Maxim_Sukharev.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/e/e5/20180605070727%21Yilan_Plain_from_the_Cherry_Orchard_Cemetery.jpg){kind=link}
_dans_%C2%AB_Les_amours_de_Don_Juan_%C2%BB_roman_1898_(05).jpg){kind=link}